Registering for the Forum

We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Big implications for redox biology are now coming..........

If you bet on Einstein over Bohr you can head to Vegas with your ticket and collect your winnings. It appears the Copenhagen Interpretation of physical reality is WRONG. It also appears Einstein's prediction in 1935 was correct. This has big implications in quantum biology. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox or the EPR paradox of 1935 is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics with which Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) claimed to demonstrate that the wave function in mathematics DOES NOT provide a complete description of physical reality, and hence that the Copenhagen interpretation is unsatisfactory and should be rejected. For those who don't know, the Standard Model of physics is based upon the Copenhagen Interpretation. Now you know why I have always referred to that 'model' as the Stranded Model of reality. Many of the beliefs in modern physics are on faulty grounds now it appears. The resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics and for nature and how she really works. This will be fun teaching my members about over the next few years. I bet on Einstein on the EPR in case you wanted to know. He got this right.......but he was wrong on how he accounted for TIME.

A paradox is a concept which must be solved or explained by facts. Any paradox in science is like a seed of truth. This germline requires a new perspective. That perspective change how we view facts. Thinking differently about a paradox is akin to putting "the seed" in a new field. This provides a fertile environment to stimulate new ideas to solve the mystery. A changing perspective provides a paradox the possibility of a solution, just as sunlight fertilizer and water are 'factors' that provide a seed a new chance to flourish and eventually bear the fruit.

The essence of the paradox is that particles can interact in such a way that it is possible to measure both their position and their momentum more accurately than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows, unless measuring one particle instantaneously affects the other to prevent this accuracy, which would involve information being transmitted faster than light as forbidden by the theory of relativity ("spooky action at a distance"). This consequence had not previously been noticed and seemed unreasonable at the time in 1935; the phenomenon involved is now known as quantum entanglement and has been proven.

The key is to realize this means that cause and effect are not what they appear to be. We do not need a cause and effect situation to describe reality. It means correlation might actually lead to causation because of probabilities of things that happen between hidden variables that humans do not sense or appreciate. This is another way to say the Dunning Kruger effect is in fact, a physical thing tied to a hidden variable that most research has not uncovered yet.

What kind of "hidden variables"? Quantum spin numbers and orbital angular momentum would be pretty good examples of hidden variables. This should perk up my members considering what is being laid out in the Quantum Thermodynamic blog series on Patreon as we speak here. Stunning development really.

Per EPR, the paradox demonstrated that quantum theory was incomplete, and needed to be extended with hidden variables.

What are hidden variables?

Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description of the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism. The existence of indeterminacy for some measurements is a characteristic of prevalent interpretations of quantum mechanics; moreover, bounds for indeterminacy can be expressed in a quantitative form by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, objected to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and famously declared "I am convinced God does not play dice". Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance. Later, Bell's theorem suggested that local hidden variables of certain types are impossible, or that they evolve non-locally. A famous non-local theory is De Broglie–Bohm theory. This is known as pilot wave theory. Nature seems to favor this..........and I like that as a Black Swan Mitochondriac.

The modern resolution is as follows: for two "entangled" particles created at once (e.g. an electron-positron pair from a photon), measurable properties have well-defined meaning only for the ensemble system. Properties of constituent subsystems (e.g. the individual electron or positron), considered individually, remain undefined. Therefore, if analogous measurements are performed on the two entangled subsystems, there will always be a correlation between the outcomes, and a well-defined global outcome for the ensemble.

Consider, for example, DavidBohm's thought-experiment (1951), in which a molecule breaks into two atoms with opposite quantum spins. Assume this spin can be represented by a real physical vector, pointing in any direction. It will be the "hidden variable" in this model of reality. You might be seeing why this is important now.

What about the Optical tests of Bell's theorem since we are beings of light?

In almost all real applications of Bell's inequalities, the particles used have been photons. In the QT series, I told you that photons have a spin number and unlimited OAM. This means they have unique very non linear effects in systems where they are used in REALITY. It is not necessarily assumed by most mitohackers that the photons are particle-like. I told you this long ago in the blogs on the Photoelectric effect and I told you that each sex uses light waves differently. Women and men have unique spins and OAM findings. In living quantum systems photons may be just short pulses of classical light (Clauser, 1978). Recall Popp told us that all living things release and seem to hide ELF-UV light. Today, no one has a clue where that light comes from. You will very soon.

In optical tests of Bell's theorem in labs, it is not assumed that every single photon is detected. In living systems using a BEC they are. Instead in the lab tests, the hidden variable set at the light source is taken to determine only the probability of a given outcome, the actual individual outcomes being partly determined by other hidden variables local to the analyzer and detector. It is assumed that these other hidden variables are independent on the two sides of the experiment (Clauser, 1974; Bell, 1971).

Atomic spectra measure radiation absorbed or emitted by electrons "jumping" from one "state" to another, where a state is represented by values of n, l, and m. These are called the 4 quantum numbers associated with every particle. There are quantum rules that govern these quantum transfers called the Transition rules

Wave function collapse. In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate (by "observation").
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Wave function, in quantum mechanics, variable quantity that mathematically describes the wave characteristics of a particle. The value of the wave function of a particle at a given point of space and time is related to the likelihood of the particle's being there at the time.

/////////////////
Not sure how much googling is going to help, since
@Jack Kruse is rewriting Quantum Mechanics in real time.

Sue-UK Vermont is going to be quite interesting this time around. I had no idea these 4 predictions from the April 2016 webinar would come this fast. NeilBB would have liked this...........because my ideas about electrons protons and light are no longer guesses.........they are in fact, true. Reality is about the pilot wave front. And this makes the deuterium story even more compelling.

The basic premise of the quantum reconstruction game is summed up by the joke about the driver who, lost in rural Ireland, asks a passer-by how to get to Dublin. “I wouldn’t start from here,” comes the reply.

Where, in quantum mechanics, is “here”? This is a huge deal for biology to answer. The theory of QM arose out of attempts to understand how atoms and molecules interact with light and other radiation, phenomena that classical physics couldn’t explain. Quantum theory was empirically motivated, and its rules were simply ones that seemed to fit what was observed. It uses mathematical formulas that, while tried and trusted, were essentially pulled out of a hat by the pioneers of the theory in the early 20th century. (Solvay Conference)

Take Erwin Schrödinger’s equation for calculating the probabilistic properties of quantum particles. The particle is described by a “wave function” that encodes all we can know about it. It’s basically a wavelike mathematical expression, reflecting the well-known fact that quantum particles can sometimes seem to behave like waves. Want to know the probability that the particle will be observed in a particular place? Just calculate the square of the wave function (or, to be exact, a slightly more complicated mathematical term), and from that, you can deduce how likely you are to detect the particle there. The probability of measuring some of its other observable properties can be found by, crudely speaking, applying a mathematical function called an operator to the wave function.

Based on this EPR paradox experiment I mention in this thread.......what does it mean for quantum biology? It means how we see quantum mechanics today will not stand. That is a huge statement because it is the most rigorous test branch of science we have that has NEVER failed until this EPR paradox experiment. When Einstein was handed DeBrolie's Ph.D. dissertation to read on QM he was stunned. He famously said this paper has pulled back the veil on quantum theory. For those of you do not know, DeBrolie was given the Nobel for his dissertation. That has never happened before.

But this so-called rule for calculating probabilities was really just an intuitive guess by the German physicist Max Born in the early 20th century. Most good science begins with a guess. So was Schrödinger’s equation itself. Neither was supported by rigorous derivation. I do not believe most people even know this today. That includes the physicists.

Quantum mechanics seems largely built of arbitrary rules like this, some of them — such as the mathematical properties of operators that correspond to observable properties of the system — rather arcane. It’s a complex framework, but it’s also an ad hoc patchwork, lacking any obvious physical interpretation or justification.

Compare this with the ground rules, or axioms, of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which was as revolutionary in its way as quantum mechanics. (Einstein launched them both, rather miraculously, in 1905.) Before Einstein, there was an untidy collection of equations to describe how light behaves from the point of view of a moving observer. Einstein dispelled the mathematical fog with two simple and intuitive principles: that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of physics are the same for two observers moving at a constant speed relative to one another. Grant these basic principles, and the rest of the theory follows. Not only are the axioms simple, but we can see at once what they mean in physical terms.

What are the analogous statements for quantum mechanics? The eminent physicist John Wheeler once asserted that if we really understood the central point of quantum theory, we would be able to state it in one simple sentence that anyone could understand. If such a statement exists, some quantum reconstructionists suspect that we’ll find it only by rebuilding quantum theory from scratch: by tearing up the work of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger and starting again.

What do I think the axiom is? I believe it will be simply stated what life really is. I think biology will redefine quantum mechanics.

I think life uses the hidden variables.......to do most of the things cells do. We still do not get it fully yet.

In quantum mechanics, however, a particle can exist not just in distinct states, like the heads and tails of a coin, but in a so-called superposition — roughly speaking, a combination of those states. In other words, a quantum bit, or qubit, can be not just in the binary state of 0 or 1, but in a superposition of the two.

But if you make a measurement of that qubit, you’ll only ever get a result of 1 or 0. That is the mystery of quantum mechanics, often referred to as the collapse of the wave function: Measurements elicit only one of the possible outcomes. To put it another way, a quantum object commonly has more options for measurements encoded in the wave function than can be seen in practice. This is the essence of the hidden variable.